User Profile: bonesiii

bonesiii

Member Since: October 14, 2012

Comments

123 To page: Go
  • November 28, 2014 at 10:44pm

    “As for evolution, there has been no such conclusive demonstration that the evidence behind evolution is non-existant or does not support evolution.”

    Well, if people want to test that assumption, I urge them to spend at least a year reading the dailies at creation.com, answersingenesis.org, and semi-dailies at icr.org. I know that your claim is false, but I don’t expect you to either know or admit this. :) They should also make sure to get a good education in logic to be able to sift evolutionary fallacies from the truth.

    “Feel free to try for your nobel prize”

    Bad goalpost as those that determine that right now are evolutionists. Eventually when evolution is left behind by history that might happen though.

  • November 28, 2014 at 10:43pm

    Taking every opportunity to baldly claim there is no evidence is not going to change that there is — you must DEAL with the alleged evidence and show logically why it doesn’t work (if indeed it doesn’t).

    I know that’s too big a subject to cover here, but that just shows why you shouldn’t have tried to change the subject midstream to that. ;)

    “Personally, I think given that you have no more evidence supporting the existence of your God than ancient Greeks did for Zeus”

    You can have whatever personal whims you wish, but that doesn’t make them true. It’s also odd to pick the biblical God, given all the well-known evidence for him, especially when your own beliefs are by contrast as invented as the false religions. It would make more sense for you, instead of pretending to be unaware of any evidence and hoping we won’t notice your feint, to acknowledge that Christians believe he is well-evidenced, and actually show why you don’t think so. :)

    “I think tossing them into the same bin is a no-brainer.”

    Due to your word choice, I have to agree. :P

    But to those of us who prefer to USE our brains, this is fallacious, as explained above. I also often point out that atheism actually fits better with most god claims, as they all imagine mere finity, so have nonsense somewhere in the explanation (according to the causality proof of God as the single infinite being that not only must exist, but must be Lone, if you will).

  • November 28, 2014 at 10:43pm

    “bonesiii, so if 99.99% of gods men have worshipped in the past few thousand years are non-existent”

    How many god or God concepts are there? If there are 100, then by definition (at least if the definition is “one true God”), 99% of them must be false. Simple logic, friend. :)

    You acknowledge this?

    Or no? What reasonable alternative is there?

    Keep in mind that some may be beings that EXIST but not in the manner ascribed to them by their worshipers — in other words, demons masquerading as gods. Keep in mind also that some words (esp. elohym) translated “god” in the Bible can mean something more generic like “power”, and demons may be “powers” but are still not the “one true God” in the sense of the single infinite perfectly consistent being demanded by the causality proof. :)

    Anyways, let’s let your conditional continue and see where it goes:

    “it is fallacy to reject the only god you believe in simply because you cannot provide tangible evidence of his existence?”

    I said it would be fallacious to deny his existence by hasty (or technically sweeping) generalization just because all the others are false. You’re changing the argument by bringing in something else midstream — the issue of evidence. I have covered that issue already, BTW (the biblical God has much evidence and some proof).

  • November 28, 2014 at 10:16pm

    Come on blink — even if you think it’s valid that those things were actually “found out,” it does you no credit that you just ignore that we are saying that they actually aren’t legitimate discoveries but worldview-based (so circular reasoning). If you were being honest in your criticisms of them, I would expect to see you acknowledging and engaging this argument, not acting like we are ignoring valid discoveries.

  • November 28, 2014 at 10:00pm

    You may have missed it, but I was praising you for at least doing that this time. (Most atheists don’t.) My issue is not that you cite it, but that 1) it’s unsound, and 2) you obviously didn’t think critically about it since you didn’t notice that.

    Your next paragraph continues that misunderstanding. Actually it is unlikely for sound truth to be rare, and seeing allegedly sound conclusions that are unheard of is actually (though sought-after) a methodological red flag (not that it’s impossible but that investigation is warranted to make sure it really is sound). That’s just a whining way to say that I’m not the only person who understands why your arguments are wrong. ;)

    “And saying you don’t accept things on blind faith when you are one of this sites foremost creationists is just FUNNY.”

    More Laughter Fallacy. Actually biblical creationists accept this not on blind faith but on evidence. :) Many of them were indoctrinated in the evolutionary worldview in their science education, but later realized based on the sound support that biblical creation was a much better fit scientifically. :)

  • November 28, 2014 at 10:00pm

    “The implication was that Dawkins doesn’t have an open mind. Dawkins is a scientist.”

    By putting these two sentences one after the other like this, are you trying to say that Dawkward being a scientist means he must have a totally open mind? (Yes, I agree open doesn’t mean believing anything, but I mean as opposed to a wrongly closed mind.) That is very naive if that’s what you meant. And from what I’ve evaluated of Dawkins reasoning so far, he exhibits the poor thought skills classic to the closeminded. Admittedly, though, I haven’t read much of his printed work, as he charges for virtually all of it (some say more than the typical money-motivated preacher), and I don’t like to give money to atheist causes.

    “Considering all you do half the time in scientific discussions is regurgitate creationist nonsense that you have absolutely no basis what so ever to believe”

    It hasn’t been demonstrated that it is nonsense, and arguments to that end have been shown fallacious repeatedly. And obviously I -do- think there’s a (sound) basis to believe them, or I wouldn’t be “regurgitating” them (read: letting people know them, which your side hopes doesn’t happen ;)).

    “you’re going to talk to me about how often I use quotes I didn’t come up with?”

    I try to go out of my way to mention when something isn’t my idea. :)

  • November 28, 2014 at 9:44pm

    “You have to explain all of the bigfoot sightings”

    I don’t see why we must explain off-topic things in order to analyze one particular topic. But most are pretty easy to explain — guys in suits… and bears.

    “You need to learn how to confine your points to a single post or two.”

    Bald assertion. :P The subject needed that much to do it justice.

    “You’re doing precisely the same thing an earlier poster did, twisting and turning and going around in circles trying to find an excuse to justify something. ‘He he can… but… he doesn’t… for reasons!’”

    Problem with this argument is it’s just blind faith that no explanation for why God doesn’t do things sometimes could possibly be sound.

    “only you make it completely sick by acting like it’s some great honor to have this obstacle to overcome”

    Predictable, lame, and fallacious (argument by outrage).

    “I guess overcoming all the other things god”

    God

    “steps in to cure by some miracle isn’t ‘an obstacle’.”

    Try to keep up, blink — in DIFFERENT situations, different things may take a higher priority.

    “Faith is, by definition, belief without evidence.”

    I covered this already. I guess you didn’t read it as you can’t handle anything longer than two posts…

    “As often as theists cry about how people try to redefine words, they apparently don’t mind doing it themselves.”

    Unless you are the one (or those you’re parroting) redefining it. The Bible’s is at least 2000 years old anyways.

  • November 28, 2014 at 9:32pm

    No, Simp, it isn’t, and your claiming so doesn’t make it so.

  • [2] November 28, 2014 at 4:36pm

    “That baby’s life did not begin from nothing – it had two parents”

    Yeah, that was his point: “Life doesn’t begin from nothing.” Doesn’t help your case. ;)

  • November 28, 2014 at 4:32pm

    “The young earth creationist spend tremendous amounts of effort trying to deny science.”

    Nope — denying unsupported claims. Science itself was founded based on biblical belief.

    “Evolution”

    Yeah we deny that (of the unbiblical meaning anyways), but we also show why it isn’t science.

    “the Big Bang”

    Same.

    “RadioMetric dating”

    Why the weird cap? Anywho, this one’s a little more nuanced, but the “dating” part, when used specifically in unreliable ways or as an absolute certainty (even in the handful of fairly reliable ways), is rejected. But the basic idea of radiometric dating as an ESTIMATION of possible EVIDENCE (not proof) is fairly scientific (I just wanna be clear here). However, conclusions based on evolutionary mythology premises/assumptions that are fed into the RMD process to give dates, is NOT science.

    Also, actually it is evolutionists who must apply it inconsistently and selectively, as shown by the 101 YE evidences here:

    http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

    Many of these don’t argue for specific dates, but rather show upper maximums TOO YOUNG for evolution, by evoluionists’ OWN LOGIC. This shows that even the arguments used by old-earthers from RMD do not work, so should be rejected.

  • November 28, 2014 at 4:24pm

    It’s ironic, Mo, that you don’t see the contradiction in YOUR using that computer, made from science based in biblical teachings about God upholding the laws of nature consistently (which is inconsistent with atheism which presupposes random nonsense), to type up a post against God.

    Also, strawman about creation; the Bible teaches that creative works ended (primarily and for now) on Day 6.

    Ebola and so forth happens because of the Fall, and will be stopped eventually, forever. :) It’s because of sin, in other words, so as long as you embrace rebellion against God, you’re the one with a problem there. You’re supporting what led to Ebola!

  • November 28, 2014 at 4:19pm

    I do agree that God’s foreknowledge makes examples like this ‘miraculous’ in a sense, although it need not be direct intervention — I think it means that it was in his plan for you to survive, and he arranged the creation from the start to domino-effect to that happenstance at that point in time. :)

    I just want to point out, though, that examples like this should not be used to argue that a definite miracle occurred. Statistics actually demands that some things like thus should happen sometimes. If they never did, THAT would be what is weird. This means that even if God hadn’t cared what happens, if you presuppose a universe somehow existing without him as atheists do, or that he doesn’t control in any way (even indirectly) what happens as some theistic evolutionists say, then statistics would still predict what we see. Some people die from situations like this; most in fact. A few don’t.

    Your chances also go up as you’re in a confined space, and if there’s any wood there, it will presumably float ( :P ). Due to the limited area to float in, there’s only so many places the wood can be; its chances of being under the wire are not astronomically rare (still rare though).

    I say this not to argue atheism, of course, but because bad arguments (not sure you meant to do this… just in case :) ) should not be used even for the truth (that God both exists AND influences things).

    Responses (1) +
  • November 28, 2014 at 4:11pm

    Anecdotes may indeed be miracles, but testing them may be difficult (and due to the freewill point — see my earlier posts here — this is expected biblically).

    And no, the universe being complicated isn’t a miracle — it’s a trait. But it DEMONSTRATES that miraculous creation is the most reasonable explanation. :) (It helps do so.)

  • November 28, 2014 at 4:09pm

    “The vast majority of atheists feel that way”

    Note the admission!

    They FEEL that way (that they understand our God). They don’t ACTUALLY understand, they just feel that they understand. Blind faith is enough for these atheists. :)

  • November 28, 2014 at 4:03pm

    To deny this is to deny causality which is the same problem in denying the causality proof itself! (Of course, many atheists do! But this only demonstrates them predictably illogical.) It DOES make sense that disobedience warrants discipline. What would make no sense is if God rewarded both obedience/loyalty and disobedience/disloyalty equally.

  • November 28, 2014 at 4:03pm

    If it’s what’s intended, Moses would not have felt the need to clarify it, since the book of Yohb (Job), written first, already stated that nothing solid holds up clouds (essentially), and marveled at it. However, I think the evidence is stronger that it refers primarily to the rest of the universe besides Earth (or the material that would soon be transmuted into it), not to clouds.

    “For your god to have to be born of a virgin, be tortured and die a horrible death to appease himself because of our ‘sin’ just makes no sense”

    I don’t agree at all. The causality proof, proving God, supports this in two ways (the second is my main point here but the first needs understood too). I have explained this in much more detail in past articles, so suffice to say that existence has to be infinite, and this has to include God, and this God would logically want to use means like unfakeable prophecies to established his communication as being from him.

    This means that what the Bible teaches cannot reasonably be dismissed so blithely like that, even if you don’t know the reasons for specific facts in it. (Just like not knowing how a cell works in all details doesn’t make it reasonable to think people, being made of them, don’t exist.)

    But more importantly, even basic physics attests that a causal balance must exist for all things. For every action, an equal and opposite reaction. When a sin is commited, it must have a consequence.

  • November 28, 2014 at 4:02pm

    This is an ancient (extremely outdated ;)) argument that’s been debunked so often there’s hardly any excuse for you so naively buying into it. Raqiya is normally translated “expanse” and likely refers to space.

    “This strange structure, which God calls heaven”

    Space IS strange (to us on a personal level), but it’s not a “structure”; it’s the lack of structure. :P Also you seem ignorant that “heaven” in this context does not refer to the raqiya alone (as your wording here seems to imply) but to everything in the sky, including the waters above, stars, the moon, etc. (note that it’s pretty much certain that the waters above were used to make the “heavenly bodies” on Day 4).

    As for why this would take time, actually this makes MORE sense in light of modern knowledge, not less — considering the extreme mass and distances involved! Makes sense such a motion would take a while. But taking a day is NOT a vast amount of time yanno. Incidentally, this verse is also one of the main ones used by those who say the Bible predicts universal expansion. I suspect so to, although reasonable warnings against some versions of that have been given by reputable creationists (esp. Hartnett).

    Wonk:

    “BigDelicious – I’ve not encountered anyone previously who had no water overhead. Are you in orbit far above the clouds?”

    That is another common interpretation of it too, yeah.

  • November 28, 2014 at 4:02pm

    “What is the purpose of free will if you have to suspend your logical mind to believe something without good evidence?”

    That hypothetical is irrelevant, since biblical faith is logical and well-evidenced. The purpose of freewill in fact is all about giving people the chance to USE logic to arrive at the right conclusion rather than having it spoonfed to them (allowing them to earn a higher honor status, etc. :)).

    Those who abuse freewill to disbelieve aren’t doing so logically — to claim otherwise is just circular reasoning; assuming the Bible is false to argue that it’s false.

    “The problem lies with the bible’s creation story in Genesis. The way it was written indicates that the author has “0′ knowledge of science or astronomy ”

    Not so. More likely you lack knowledge of science and of what the Bible says and means. In fact Genesis teaches many things science has confirmed that mere “local yokels” should NOT have been able to guess, like my favorite stock example, the right number of primary groups of Y-chromosomes and mitochondria:

    http://creation.com/noah-and-genetics

    “For example:

    Genesis 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

    A firmament? God spends one-sixth of his entire creative effort (the second day) working on a solid firmament.”

    Doesn’t say solid. And BTW… yawn… can’t you guys ever do some research?

  • November 28, 2014 at 3:35pm

    …and greater works than these will he do, because I go to the Father.””

    I have always taken this to refer to honor status in terms of what makes a work great, and to good works, not to miraculous or “really impressive” works. Not 100% sure offhand, but it’s reasonable that Christians who are more blessed because they haven’t directly seen (as Jesus said to Thomas) any miracles have a higher honor status for doing good based on loyalty to Christ than those who do this while witnessing impressive miracles.

    It probably is also meant to be taken in light of the rule about freewill — any impressive direct intervention miracle is nothing compared to changing the whole world despite freewill as Christianity has done, bringing reforms of science and morality across almost the entire globe, even if we’re in a dangerous period of decline right now (also predicted though of course). Since the one intervention God cannot do (as it breaks his morals) is force belief, this is probably the greatest work of all, and it has been done primarily by Christians without direct intervention (Thomas-style) help from God (not at the same time, anyways, though they could of course point to historical miracles).

    So, I wouldn’t use this to argue for post-biblical miracles. If anything it argues against them or at least against their being common or commonly well-known (as explained in other posts, I suspect a combination of the latter two options).

  • November 28, 2014 at 3:33pm

    First, note that while these are two purposes of miracles, it’s hardly exhaustive. I’ve mentioned a few others in other posts here. And listing all KNOWN purposes does NOT prove those are the ONLY possible purposes. It stands to reason that God could have other purposes you aren’t aware of yet.

    But the main reason the logic doesn’t work is that you seem to imply that PR tools to get people to see Jesus or apostles (or OT equivs) are the only reason, and if that premise were true, your conclusion would work, but you yourself admitted miracles for the purpose of healing existed too. That purpose would reasonably continue today.

    “But the main reason was to get people to come”

    Notice you’ve oddly moved the goalpost midstream so that this is no longer the ONLY reason, but just the MAIN one. Yet you move it back in the following part:

    “to hear the Apostles and or Jesus to preach the new testament, that when Jesus died would become into effect. So anyone teaching that miracles exist today are lying.”

    The last sentence requires that to be the ONLY purpose, but you admitted it wasn’t (and even if you hadn’t, it would probably be true and the Bible cites others).

    Freu:

    “So how do you reconcile that claim with John 14:12 where Jesus says “Truly, Truly, I say to you, he who believes in me will also do the works that I do… [continued in next]

123 To page: Go